Search

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed a significant difference in case fatality rate between different regions at the early stage of the epidemic. In addition to the well-known factors such as age structure, detection efficiency, and race, there was also a possibility that medical resource shortage caused the increase of the case fatality rate in some regions. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, and Wan fang of identified articles were searched through 29 June 2020. Cohort studies and case series with duration information on COVID-19 patients were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using a standardized data collection form and assessed the risk of bias. Data were synthesized through description and analysis methods including a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 109 articles were retrieved. The time interval from onset to the first medical visit of COVID-19 patients in China was 3.38±1.55 days (corresponding intervals in Hubei province, non-Hubei provinces, Wuhan, Hubei provinces without Wuhan were 4.22±1.13, 3.10±1.57, 4.20±0.97, and 4.34±1.72 days, respectively). The time interval from onset to the hospitalization of COVID-19 patients in China was 8.35±6.83 days (same corresponding intervals were 12.94±7.43, 4.17±1.45, 14.86±7.12, and 5.36±1.19 days, respectively), and when it was outside China, this interval was 5.27±1.19 days. DISCUSSION: In the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, patients with COVID-19 did not receive timely treatment, resulting in a higher case fatality rate in Hubei province, partly due to the relatively insufficient and unequal medical resources. This research suggested that additional deaths caused by the out-of-control epidemic can be avoided if prevention and control work is carried out at the early stage of the epidemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020195606.

Background: Exercise and physiotherapy are accepted as an important contribution to the rehabilitation of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). But the previous results are unclear partly because of their limited power and small sample sizes. Aims: We aimed to understand better the effects of two exercise training interventions and two modalities of physiotherapies on exercise capacity, quality of life (QoL), and diastolic dysfunction in HFpEF patients. Methods: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE via PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials from their inception to May 2021. The effect size was estimated as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 14 articles on 13 trials were included in this meta-analysis with 673 HFpEF patients. The pooling revealed that peak oxygen uptake was improved by endurance training, functional electrical stimulation (FES), and inspiratory muscle training (IMT). Similar results were observed for a 6-minute walk test and QoL. A combination of endurance and resistance training (combined exercise) was beneficial to the ratio of peak early to late diastolic mitral inflow velocities (MD [95% CI]: –2.90 [–4.97, –0.83]; P = 0.006) and the early diastolic mitral annual velocity (MD [95% CI]: 1.40 [0.68, 2.12]; P = 0.006]. IMT improved the ventilation/carbon dioxide ratio slope (MD [95% CI]: –3.36 ml/kg/min [–6.17, –0.54]; P = 0.019]. Conclusions: FES and IMT improve functional capacity and QoL without a change in diastolic function in HFpEF patients, and the outcomes are similar to endurance training. Notably, combined exercise may improve diastolic function. Key words: diastolic function, exercise training, functional electrical stimulation, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, inspiratory muscle training

ObjectivesTo analyze the effectiveness and quality of stroke clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years in order to guide future guideline developers to develop better guidelines.ParticipantsNo patient involvedMethodPubMed, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wanfang, CNKI, and CPG-relevant websites were searched from January 2015 to December 2019 by two researchers independently. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality in terms of domains and items. Then, a subgroup analysis of the results was performed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresRIGHT checklist reporting rateResultsA total of 66 CPGs were included. Twice as many CPGs were published internationally as were published in China. More than half were updated. Most CPGs are published in journals, developed by societies or associations, and were evidence-based grading. The average reporting rate for all included CPGs was 47.6%. Basic information got the highest (71.7% ± 19.7%) reporting rate, while review and quality assurance got the lowest (22.0% ± 24.6%). Then, a cluster analysis between countries, publishing channels, and institutions was performed. There were no statistically significant differences in the reporting quality on the CPGs between publishing countries (China vs. international), publishing channels (journals vs. websites), and institutions (associations vs. non-associations).ConclusionsCurrent stroke CPGs reports are of low quality. We recommend that guideline developers improve the quality of reporting of key information and improve the management of conflicts of interest. We recommend that guideline developers consider the RIGHT checklist as an important tool for guideline development.Trial registration10.17605/OSF.IO/PBWUX.

Objective Complete and transparent reporting is of critical importance for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present study aimed to determine the reporting quality and methodological quality of RCTs for interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) and their protocols. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, CBMdisc, Wanfang Data, and CNKI from January 1, 2016, to November 11, 2020, to collect RCTs involving AI. We also extracted the protocol of each included RCT if it could be obtained. CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence) statement and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (ROB) were used to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively, and SPIRIT-AI (The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence) statement was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the protocols. The associations of the reporting rate of CONSORT-AI with the publication year, journal's impact factor (IF), number of authors, sample size, and first author's country were analyzed univariately using Pearson's chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test if the expected values in any of the cells were below 5. The compliance of the retrieved protocols to SPIRIT-AI was presented descriptively. Results Overall, 29 RCTs and three protocols were considered eligible. The CONSORT-AI items “title and abstract” and “interpretation of results” were reported by all RCTs, with the items with the lowest reporting rates being “funding” (0), “implementation” (3.5%), and “harms” (3.5%). The risk of bias was high in 13 (44.8%) RCTs and not clear in 15 (51.7%) RCTs. Only one RCT (3.5%) had a low risk of bias. The compliance was not significantly different in terms of the publication year, journal's IF, number of authors, sample size, or first author's country. Ten of the 35 SPIRIT-AI items (funding, participant timeline, allocation concealment mechanism, implementation, data management, auditing, declaration of interests, access to data, informed consent materials and biological specimens) were not reported by any of the three protocols. Conclusions The reporting and methodological quality of RCTs involving AI need to be improved. Because of the limited availability of protocols, their quality could not be fully judged. Following the CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI statements and with appropriate guidance on the risk of bias when designing and reporting AI-related RCTs can promote standardization and transparency.

Objective Since the beginning of the COVID‐19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID‐19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID‐19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines. Methods We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID‐19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID‐19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID‐19 across the included guidelines. Results A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X‐rays, lung ultrasound, RT‐PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID‐19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID‐19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy. Conclusions The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID‐19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID‐19 are RT‐PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID‐19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Background Several antiviral agents licenced for blocking mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HBV, but their relative efficacy beginning from different trimesters has scarce been evaluated. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis to statistically differ the efficacy and safety of each antiviral agents initiating on different timings in preventing mother-to-infant transmission of HBV. Methods Studies were included from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 1, 2019. Eligible studies recruited randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies reporting about infant or/and maternal efficacy and safety outcomes and were screened by two investigators independently. Extracted data were analyzed by pair-wised and network meta-analysis, respectively. Results 3 Randomized and 32 nonrandomized studies enrolling 6738 pregnant female were included. Using network analysis, any antiviral agent interrupted HBV vertical transmission much more effectively than placebo. No agent showed significant efficacy different from others, but a strong trend toward significance was found in telbivudine and tenofovir, of which had the highest probability of being ranked the first- or second-best treatment for reducing MTCT of HBV. The treatment applied in the first and second trimester had a similar efficacy in preventing MTCT. Compared with the initiation during the third trimester, lower rate of MTCT was revealed when antiviral therapy was administrated before third trimester, (RR = 0.045, 95% CI 0.0053 to 0.20); a similar effect at delivery on suppressing maternal HBV DNA level and converting serum HBeAg were achieved if the timing of antiviral treatment started prior, but an obvious improvement of normalizing ALT flare was calculated out; no statistically differences among maternal and fetal safety outcomes were found if mothers received antiviral agents before pregnant 28 weeks. Conclusion This network meta-analysis recommended the earlier use of telbivudine or tenofovir, tends to be better to prevent MTCT of HBV in pregnancy with no increased adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.

AimTo identify the safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review. Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, and CNKI were searched on 23 July 2021. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched to collect ongoing trials. We included published researches or ongoing clinical trials related to the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in children or adolescents (aged ≤18 years). Meta-analysis was performed if the consistency of the included studies was high. If not, descriptive analyses were performed.ResultsEight published studies with 2851 children or adolescents and 28 ongoing clinical trials were included. Among eight published studies, two (25.0%) were RCTs, two (25.0%) case series, and four (50.0%) case reports. The results showed selected COVID-19 vaccines had a good safety profile in children and adolescents. Injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and chest pain were the most common adverse events. Some studies reported a few cases of myocarditis and pericarditis. Two RCTs showed that the immune response to BNT162b2 in adolescents aged 12-15 years was non-inferior to that in young people aged 16-25 years, while a stronger immune response was detected with 3μg CoronaVac injection. Only one single RCT showed the efficacy of BNT162b2 was 100% (95% CI: 75.3 to 100). Of the 28 ongoing clinical trials, twenty-three are interventional studies. Fifteen countries are conducting interventional clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents. Among them, China (10, 43.5%) and United Stated (9, 39.1%) were the top two countries with the most trials. BNT162b2 was the most common vaccine, which is under testing.ConclusionSome of the COVID-19 vaccines have potential protective effects in children and adolescents, but awareness is needed to monitor possible adverse effects after injection. Clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents with long follow-up, large sample size, and different vaccines are still urgently needed.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can provide systematically developed clinical recommendations to guide pediatric clinicians and patients making decisions. This study aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE from 1 January 1990 to 2 April 2020 to identify pediatric CPGs published in the ten highest-impact pediatric journals and four highest-impact general medical journals. Two researchers evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health care (RIGHT) checklist. We calculated the mean AGREE II scores and compliance to RIGHT overall, and for each domain of the respective tools. We compared the methodological and reporting quality by different time periods and calculated the correlation between the AGREE II score and compliance to RIGHT. RESULTS: A total of 159 pediatric CPGs were identified. The mean (± standard deviation) scores for the six domains of the AGREE II instrument were as follows: scope and purpose 74.5%±14.2%, stakeholder involvement 42.7%±16.2%, rigour of development 18.7%±14.2%, clarity of presentation 56.5%±17.0%, applicability 8.9%±12.7% and editorial independence 25.2%±34.6%. The overall assessment score was 37.8%±12.4%. The mean compliance to RIGHT items in the seven domains of the checklist were: basic information 73.6%±14.9%, background 67.1%±16.4%, evidence 32.7%±27.2%, recommendations 32.4%±22.5%, review and quality assurance 22.9%±40.4%, funding and declaration and management of interests 24.1%±36.3%, and other information 45.3%±30.1%. The overall reporting rate for RIGHT was 46.4%±16.6%. Both the AGREE II scores and RIGHT reporting rates increased over time. We found a high positive correlation between AGREE II scores and RIGHT reporting compliance (r=0.645, P

More women postpone childbearing nowadays while female fertility begins to decline with advancing age. Furthermore, with the rolling out of the two-child policy, there is a huge demand for a second child for Chinese aged women. There are various assisted reproductive technology (ART) strategies applied for age-related infertility without solid evidence. On behalf of the Society of Reproductive Medicine, Chinese Medical Association, we would like to develop a Chinese guideline of ART strategies for age-related infertility. This guideline was produced following the recommendations for standard guidelines described in the 2012 WHO Handbook for guideline development. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was also followed. A protocol was formulated and a Guideline Development Group was formed with specialists of reproductive medicine, methodologists from Chinese GRADE working group, and patient representative. Questions regarding the ART strategies for aged infertility were formulated and 8 most important ones were chosen to be structured in PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). Comprehensive search and review of the literature were performed and the quality of the evidence was assessed and rated based on certain criteria and be categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low. Twenty-five recommendations were formulated among members of the Guidelines Development Group (Delphi method) basing on the overall quality of the evidence, in addition to the balance between benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource implications. The final recommendations were agreed on by consensus during face-to-face meetings. This is the first Chinese practice guideline in reproductive medicine developed following the standard and scientific method.

Background Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential intervention in the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19. Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods We searched for relevant studies in the CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other resources from their inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19 were included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Results Overall, 19 studies with 1474 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.83-3.89, I2 = 0%), improvement in the CT scan (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.80-3.29, I2 = 0%), percentage of cases turning to severe/critical (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, I2 = 17.1%), reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity rate (OR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.06-6.17, I2 = 56.4%) and disappearance rate of symptoms (fever, cough, and fatigue) were superior by combined CHM treatment of COVID-19. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.46, 95% CI -3.87 - 2.95, I2 = 99.5%), and rate of adverse effects (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.07, I2 = 43.5%). The quality of evidence was very low to low. Conclusion The combined treatment of COVID-19 with Chinese and Western medicine may be effective in controlling symptoms and reducing the rate of disease progression due to low quality evidence.

Background The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009–2019 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines. Methods We searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wanfang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Google Scholar. Results Seventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%); only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (basic information, background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests, and other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively. Conclusion The reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.

We read with interest a meta-analysis (1) recently published in “Frontiers in Endocrinology” conducted by Zhang et al. In this study (1), Zhang and colleagues included eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and performed a meta-analysis to produce a pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of SGLT2is versus placebo in reducing four cardiovascular endpoints. The authors in this study (1) concluded that SGLT2is would be an ideal choice for T2D patients with heart failure (HF) because they found that SGLT2is significantly reduced hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and cardiovascular death (CVD) versus placebo in T2D patients. On the other hand, they concluded that SGLT2is did not significantly affect all-cause death (ACD) because they produced the nonsignificant 95% CI of RR (SGLT2is versus placebo: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-1.01) for ACD. In my opinion, these two conclusions are not rigorous. First, they cannot conclude that SGLT2is are an ideal choice for T2D patients with HF until they assess the efficacy of SGLT2is in this T2D subgroup of concomitant HF and identify the obvious effectiveness. Second, using RR as drug effect is not accurate enough; all the original studies included in the meta-analysis (1) used hazard ratio (HR) as drug effect and RR only contains the status of the occurrence of events, but fails to contain the time when events happen. HR, on the other hand, contains both. Thus, to validate and further extend the findings in the meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (1), we implemented this further quantitative synthesis study by carrying out a meta-analysis stratified by the status of HF based on the data of HRs and 95% CIs as reported in the original studies. Moreover, we additionally incorporated the recently published SOLOIST-WHF trial (2), in addition to the eight RCTs included in the study by Zhang et al. (1), because this trial (2) contributed to the relevant data of the T2D subgroup of concomitant HF.

Objectives The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009–2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.Methods We searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wan Fang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for relevant guidelines. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism) (EULAR). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Medlive and Google Scholar. Results Seventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%), only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (Basic information, Background, Evidence, Recommendations, Review and quality assurance, Funding and declaration and management of interests, and Other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6% 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively.Conclusion The reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.

The worldwide spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus has become a profound threat to human health. As the use of medication without established effectiveness may result in adverse health consequences, the development of evidence-based guidelines is of critical importance for the clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research presents methods used to develop rapid advice guidelines on treating COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). We have followed the basic approach for developing WHO rapid guidelines, including preparing, developing, disseminating and updating each process. Compared with general guidelines, this rapid advice guideline is unique in formulating the body of evidence, as the available evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with TCM is from either indirect or observational studies, clinical first-hand data together with expert experience in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, our search of evidence not only focuses on clinical studies of treating COVID-19 with TCM but also of similar diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted to rate the quality of evidence and distinguish the strength of recommendations. The overall certainty of the evidence is graded as either high, moderate, low or very low, and to give either “strong” or “weak” recommendations of each TCM therapy. The output of this paper will produce the guideline on TCM for COVID-19 and will also provide some ideas for evidence collection and synthesis in the future development of rapid guidelines for COVID-19 in TCM as well as other areas.

IntroductionIntra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and cause a significant worldwide burden per year. Since the concept of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) was proposed in 1905, it has been widely used in the surgery practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs has always been controversial. Our objective is to identify whether it is beneficial to flush the abdominal cavity with saline in IAIs surgery through a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThis protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Electronic databases (including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, etc) and clinical trial registry platforms will be searched from inception to 8 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised clinical trials and cohort studies comparing IOPL and suction alone in IAIs will be included. The primary outcomes are mortality and abscess rate. Two independent reviewers will screen literature, collect data and assess risk of bias of included studies. Discussion or a third reviewer will be referred for any disagreements. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of the evidence. We will perform meta-analysis using random-effects model. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias will be conducted if data are enough.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to local and international policy makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019145109.

Background Most guidelines on COVID-19 published so far include recommendations for patients regardless of age. Clinicians need a more accurate understanding of the clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19. Methods We searched studies reporting clinical characteristics in children with COVID-19 published until March 31, 2020. We screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of evidence of the included studies. We combined some of the outcomes (symptoms) in a single-arm meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results Our search retrieved 49 studies, including 25 case reports, 23 case series and one cohort study, with a total of 1,667 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms. Eighty-three percent of the children were within family clusters of cases, and 19% had no symptoms. At least 7% with digestive symptoms. The main symptoms of children were fever [48%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 39%, 56%] and cough (39%, 95% CI: 30%, 48%). The lymphocyte count was below normal level in only 15% (95% CI: 8%, 22%) of children which is different from adult patients. 66% (95% CI: 55%, 77%) of children had abnormal findings in CT imaging. Conclusions Most children with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms, and many children are asymptomatic. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms in children. Vomiting and diarrhea were not common in children. The lymphocyte count is usually within the normal range in children.

Background Supportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases. Methods An umbrella review of supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. Results We included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults [odds ratio/relative risk (OR/RR) ranging from 0.71 to 1.28], but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases. Conclusions Our overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

This project aims to evaluate the methods and reporting quality of practice guidelines of five different viruses that have caused Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) over 20 past years: the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Ebola virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Zika virus and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically searched databases, guideline websites and government health agency websites from their inception to February 02, 2020 to extract practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus, SARS-CoV-2 and the diseases they caused. The literature was screened independently by four researchers. Then, fifteen researchers evaluated the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE-II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, for methodological quality) instrument and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare, for reporting quality) statement. Finally, a total of 81 guidelines were included, including 21 SARS-CoV guidelines, 11 Ebola virus (EBOV) guidelines, 9 MERS-CoV guidelines, 10 Zika Virus guidelines and 30 SARS-CoV-2 guidelines. The evaluation of the methodological quality indicated that the mean scores of each domain for guidelines of each virus were all below 60%, the scores for guidelines in the domains of "clarity of presentation" being the highest and in the "editorial independence" lowest. The mean reporting rate of each domain for guidelines of each virus was also less than 60%: the reporting rates for the domain "background" were highest, and for the domain "funding and interests" lowest. The methodological and reporting quality of the practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 guidelines tend to be low. We recommend to follow evidence-based methodology and the RIGHT statement on reporting when developing guidelines.

BackgroundIntravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is usually used as supportive therapy, but the treatment of COVID-19 by IVIG is controversial. This rapid review aims to explore the clinical effectiveness and safety of IVIG in the treatment of children with severe COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched the literature on the use of IVIG in patients with COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), including both adults and children. We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence and reported the main findings descriptively.ResultsA total of 1519 articles were identified by initial literature search, and finally six studies, included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), four case series and one case report involving 198 patients. One case series showed the survival of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was not improved by IVIG. One case report showed high-dose IVIG could improve the outcome of COVID-19 adults. Three observational studies showed inconsistent results of the effect of IVIG on SARS patients. One RCT showed that IVIG did not reduce mortality or the incidence of nosocomial infection in adults with severe SARS. The quality of evidence was between low and very low.ConclusionsThe existing evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy or safety of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak presents a new, life-threatening disease. Our aim was to assess the potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 in children.MethodsElectronic databases from their inception to March, 31 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies of interventions with antiviral agents for children (less than 18 years of age) with COVID-19.ResultsA total of 23 studies of indirect evidence with 6008 patients were included. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate to high in general. The effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19 is uncertain: For adults with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir had no effect on mortality (risk ratio [RR]= 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 1.30) and probability of negative PCR test (RR=0.98, 95 CI% 0.82 to 1.18). Arbidol had no benefit on probability of negative PCR test (RR=1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.73). Hydroxychloroquine was not associated with increasing the probability of negative PCR result (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18). For adults with SARS, interferon was associated with reduced corticosteroid dose (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-0.14 g, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07) but had no effect on mortality (RR=0.72, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.88); ribavirin did not reduce mortality (RR=0.68, 95% CI % 0.43 to 1.06) and was associated with high risk of severe adverse reactions; and oseltamivir had no effect on mortality (RR=0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.38). Ribavirin combined with interferon was also not effective in adults with MERS and associated with adverse reactions.ConclusionsThere is no evidence showing the effectiveness of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19, and the clinical efficacy of existing antiviral agents is still uncertain. We do not suggest clinical routine use of antivirals for COVID-19 in children, with the exception of clinical trials.

BackgroundSupportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases.MethodsAn umbrella review of supportive care for patient respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults (OR/RR ranging from 0.71 to 1.28), but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases.ConclusionsOur overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

BackgroundCOVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic.MethodsWe searched major international and Chinese databases Medicine, Web of science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM(China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database)) for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS(Severe Acute Respiratory Syndromes) and MERS(Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff and other indicators.ResultsWe included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections were 44.0%, 36.0% and 56.0% for COVID-19, SARS and MERS, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively.ConclusionsThe proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44%. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.

BackgroundThe outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a massive impact on the whole world. Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the diagnosis of this novel pneumonia. This study aims to understand the role of CT for the diagnosis and the main imaging manifestations of patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis on studies about the use of chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We comprehensively searched databases and preprint servers on chest CT for patients with COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2020. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of chest CT imaging. We also conducted subgroup analyses and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 104 studies with 5694 patients were included. Using RT-PCR results as reference, a meta-analysis based on 64 studies estimated the sensitivity of chest CT imaging in COVID-19 was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00). If case reports were excluded, the sensitivity in case series was 96% (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The sensitivity of CT scan in confirmed patients under 18 years old was only 66% (95% CI, 0.11-1.00). The most common imaging manifestation was ground-glass opacities (GGO) which was found in 75% (95% CI, 0.68-0.82) of the patients. The pooled probability of bilateral involvement was 84% (95% CI, 0.81-0.88). The most commonly involved lobes were the right lower lobe (84%, 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) and left lower lobe (81%, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). The quality of evidence was low across all outcomes.ConclusionsIn conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that chest CT scan had a high sensitivity in diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Therefore, CT can potentially be used to assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BackgroundMost guidelines on COVID-19 published so far include recommendations for patients regardless of age. Clinicians need a more accurate understanding of the clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched studies reporting clinical characteristics in children with COVID-19 published until March 31, 2020. We screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of evidence of the included studies. We combined some of the outcomes (symptoms) in a single-arm meta-analysis using a random-effects model.ResultsOur search retrieved 49 studies, including 25 case reports, 23 case series and one cohort study, with a total of 1667 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms. Eighty-three percent of the children were within family clusters of cases, and 19% had no symptoms. At least 7% with digestive symptoms. The main symptoms of children were fever (48%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%, 56%) and cough (39%, 95% CI: 30%, 48%). The lymphocyte count was below normal level in only 15% [95% CI: 8%, 22%] of children which is different from adult patients. 66% [95% CI: 55%, 77%] of children had abnormal findings in CT imaging.ConclusionsMost children with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms, and many children are asymptomatic. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms in children. Vomiting and diarrhea were not common in children. The lymphocyte count is usually within the normal range in children.

Background In December 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China and has rapidly spread around the world since then. Aim This study aims to understand the research gaps related to COVID-19 and propose recommendations for future research. Methods We undertook a scoping review of COVID-19, comprehensively searching databases and other sources to identify literature on COVID-19 between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020. We analysed the sources, publication date, type and topic of the retrieved articles/studies. Results We included 249 articles in this scoping review. More than half (59.0%) were conducted in China. Guidance/guidelines and consensuses statements (n = 56; 22.5%) were the most common. Most (n = 192; 77.1%) articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, 35 (14.1%) on preprint servers and 22 (8.8%) posted online. Ten genetic studies (4.0%) focused on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 while the topics of molecular studies varied. Nine of 22 epidemiological studies focused on estimating the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 infection (R0). Of all identified guidance/guidelines (n = 35), only ten fulfilled the strict principles of evidence-based practice. The number of articles published per day increased rapidly until the end of January. Conclusion The number of articles on COVID-19 steadily increased before 6 February 2020. However, they lack diversity and are almost non-existent in some study fields, such as clinical research. The findings suggest that evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and public health policies will be improved when more results from clinical research becomes available.

Objective Stroke is the leading cause of death and disability in China. Chinese medicine integrated with conventional medicine is now widely used in the prevention and treatment of stroke. A clinical practice guideline for the application of integrative medicine in stroke is urgently needed. Methods This guideline was developed following the methodology and procedures recommended in the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development and the Guideline Development Handbook for Diagnosis and Therapy of Integrative Medicine. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were evaluated using the GRADE approach. The guideline followed the RIGHT statement and AGREE II was consulted to ensure its quality. Results A multidisciplinary working team was established. Eleven research questions from 15 clinical questions were identified by questionnaire surveys, face-to-face meetings, and analyzed by the working team. Fourteen recommendations regarding integrative medicine for ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and complications of stroke were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, quality of evidence, the values and preferences of patients and their family members, feedback on proposed recommendations from medical practitioners from a variety of disciplines, and a face-to-face consensus meeting. Conclusions This guideline focuses on clinical treatments that are specific to integrative medicine for stroke and can be used at all levels in medical institutions and rehabilitation facilities. The end-users of the guideline are most likely to be medical practitioners, including Chinese herbal medicine specialists, acupuncturists, integrative medicine practitioners, physicians, physical therapists, and clinical pharmacists.

Aims. To investigate the effect of preoperative HbA1c levels on the postoperative outcomes of coronary artery disease surgery in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Methods and Results. The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biology Medicine (CBM) databases were used to search the effects of different preoperative HbA1c levels on the postoperative outcomes of coronary artery disease surgical treatment in diabetic and nondiabetic patients from inception to December 2018. Two review authors worked in an independent and duplicate manner to select eligible studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of the included studies. We used a meta-analysis to synthesize data and analyze subgroups, sensitivity, and publication bias as well as the GRADE methodology if appropriate. The literature search retrieved 886 records initially, and 23 cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. In this meta-analysis, we found that there was a reduced incidence of surgical site infections (OR=2.94, 95% CI 2.18-3.98), renal failure events (OR=1.63, 95% CI 1.13-2.33), and myocardial infarction events (OR=1.69, 95% CI 1.16-2.47), as well as a shortened hospital stay (MD=1.08, 95% CI 0.46-1.71), in diabetic patients after coronary artery disease surgical treatment with lower preoperative HbA1c levels. For nondiabetic patients, a higher preoperative HbA1c level resulted in an increase in the incidence of mortality (OR=2.23, 95% CI 1.01-4.90) and renal failure (OR=2.33, 95% CI 1.32-4.12). No significant difference was found between higher and lower preoperative HbA1c levels in the incidence of mortality (OR=1.06, 95% CI 0.88-1.26), stroke (OR=1.49, 95% CI 0.94-2.37), or atrial fibrillation (OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.67-1.33); the length of ICU stay (MD=0.20, 95% CI -0.14-0.55); or sepsis incidence (OR=2.49, 95% CI 0.99-6.25) for diabetic patients or for myocardial infarction events (OR=1.32, 95% CI 0.27-6.31) or atrial fibrillation events (OR=0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.33) for nondiabetic patients. The certainty of evidence was judged to be moderate or low. Conclusion. This meta-analysis showed that higher preoperative HbA1c levels may potentially increase the risk of surgical site infections, renal failure, and myocardial infarction and reduce the length of hospital stay in diabetic subjects after coronary artery disease surgical treatment and increase the risk of mortality and renal failure in nondiabetic patients. However, there was great inconsistency in defining higher preoperative HbA1c levels in the studies included; we still need high-quality RCTs with a sufficiently large sample size to further investigate this issue in the future. This trial is registered with CRD42019121531.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Critical clinical questions regarding how soon and how long the analgesic effect will be achieved by acupuncture, as well as who will be responsive to acupuncture, need further address. The aim of the study was to investigate the response-time relationship and covariate effects of acupuncture. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to December 2018 for randomized controlled trials that involved sham acupuncture, true acupuncture and conventional therapy. We used a model-based longitudinal meta-analysis to characterize the response-time profile of these treatments. RESULTS Seventy-seven randomized clinical trials involved chronic shoulder, neck, knee and low back pain were included. The response-time analysis suggested that the treatment duration of acupuncture will be 5 weeks or more to achieve 80% of maximum analgesic effect. Moreover a lower baseline pain intensity and the location of low back pain resulted in a lower pain relief of acupuncture intervention. The absolute maximum analgesic effects of sham acupuncture and conventional therapy were 22.6 and 15.8 points at a 0-100 NRS scale. The absolute effect of true acupuncture was 26.1 points for low back pain (relative effect of 3.5 and 9.4 points to sham and conventional therapy), 34.9 points for other pain body locations (relative effect of 12.3 and 19.1 points to sham and conventional therapy), in patients with a baseline pain intensity of 60 points. CONCLUSION The treatment duration of acupuncture will not be less than 5 weeks to achieve 80% maximum analgesic effect. Higher analgesic effect was related to higher baseline pain intensity and pain location of neck, shoulder and knee. SIGNIFICANCE Our systematic review and meta-analysis provides the clear evidence for the treatment duration and significant related covariates of acupuncture intervention for chronic pain. These results provide useful suggestion for acupuncture intervention in clinical pain management.

Traditional Chinese medicine has been used for the treatment of many diseases including acute infections often associated with public health emergencies for thousands of years. However, clinical evidence supporting the use of these treatments is insufficient, and the mechanism for using Chinese medicine therapy in the public health setting has not been fully established. In this report, the Evidence-based Traditional and Integrative Chinese medicine Responding to Public Health Emergencies Working Group proposed five recommendations to facilitate the inclusion of Chinese medicine as part of our responses to public health emergencies. It is expected that the Working Group’s proposals may promote the investigation and practice of Chinese Medicine in public health settings.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diabetes mellitus published in China over the period of January 2007 to April 2017.MethodsWe searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature database, VIP database and WanFang databases and guideline websites for CPGs for diabetes mellitus published between January 2007 and April 2017 in China. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data. We used the the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Canada) to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines, calculated the scores of each domain and evaluated the consistency among the assessors via use of the intragroup correlation coefficient. And then we compared the results with Chinese CPGs and international CPGs. We conducted a subgroup analysis based on different classification criteria and compared scores of each domain subgroup analyses.ResultsA total of 98 guidelines were identified. The correlation coefficient within the group was 0.93, suggesting that the consistency between the evaluators was good. The scores of the six domains of AGREE II were described in median (IQR) as follows: scope and purpose 53.7 (50.0–59.7), stakeholder involvement 31.5 (27.3–37.0), rigour of development 19.1 (15.3–22.2), clarity of presentation 59.3 (50.0–64.8), applicability 18.1 (13.9–25.7) and editorial independence 0.0 (0.0–0.0). The mean score in each domain of quality of Chinese diabetes CPGs was lower than that of CPGs published worldwide but higher than the mean score of Chinese guidelines of all topics. A funding source, the updated version, organisation and publishers of the guidelines and target fields are all the factors influencing the quality of CPGs to a certain degree.ConclusionsA large number of Chinese diabetes CPGs have been produced. Their quality remain unsatisfactorily low compared with CPGs worldwide, there is still room for improvement. Chinese guideline developers should pay more attention to the transparency of methodology, and use the AGREE II instrument to develop and report guidelines.

Introduction In recent years, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has developed rapidly, leading to an increasing number of clinical practice guidelines in this field. However, the reporting quality of current clinical practice guidelines in ART is still unknown. Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of ART using the RIGHT checklist. Method Relevant guidelines were identified by electronic search of PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wan Fang Database and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the beginning of the database to October, 2017. We also searched the websites of the guideline development organizations, including Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as from two medical associations, including the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We used Google Scholar to find additional clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as well. Two investigators searched the database, selected guidelines independently based on the inclusion criteria, and extracted the relevant information. Result Fifteen guidelines (i.e. six developed by individual institutions and 9 by associations) were included. On average, 12.7 out of 35 items in the RIGHT standard (36.3%) were reported in each guideline. Five items were not reported by any of these guidelines. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (i.e. Basic information; Background; Evidence; Recommendations; Review and quality assurance; Funding and declaration and management of interests; Other information) were 46.7%, 40.8%, 45.3%, 29.5%, 53.3%, 10.0%, 26.7%, respectively. Conclusion At present, the reporting quality of guidelines for ART is poor, especially regarding the funding. In the future guideline development, more consideration should be given to reporting, dissemination and implementation.

Background Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed the association between egg consumption and human health, but the evidence is often conflicting. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search to find all systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the association between egg consumption and any type of health outcome. We used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of the reviews, and GRADE to determine the quality of evidence. We visualized the results using a human anatomy diagram and evidence mapping. Results Our search revealed 29 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eight studies were of high methodological quality, 16 studies of medium quality, and five studies of low quality. We identified 34 primary outcomes from the included 29 reviews, which were combined into a total of 22 different health outcomes. Two of the primary outcomes were based on high-quality evidence, 18 on moderate-quality evidence, and 14 on low-quality evidence. Egg consumption was associated with an increased risk of two diseases and decreased risk of six outcomes. For ten outcomes, no significant association was found, and for four outcomes, different reviews came to conflicting conclusions. Conclusions The association between egg consumption and the risk of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and other related diseases has been studied in several meta-analyses. The evidence from different studies on the same topic was often conflicting, which can complicate the making of dietary recommendations.

Background Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided. Methods This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation. Results Of the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes. Conclusions Most of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1083-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAs COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, early prevention and control of the epidemic is extremely important. Telemedicine, which includes medical advice given over telephone, Internet, mobile phone applications or other similar ways, may be an efficient way to reduce transmission and pressure on medical institutions.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Web of science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases for literature on the use of telemedicine for COVID-19, SARS and MERS. from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We included studies about the content of the consultation (such as symptoms, therapy and prevention, policy, public service), screening of suspected cases, the provision of advice given to those people who may have symptoms or contact history. We conducted meta-analyses on the main outcomes of the studies.ResultsA total of 2041 articles were identified after removing duplicates. After reading the full texts, we finally included nine studies. People were most concerned about symptoms (64.2%), epidemic situation and public problems (14.5%), and psychological problems (10.3%) during COVID-19 epidemic. During the SARS epidemic, the proportions of people asking for consultation for symptoms, prevention and therapy, and psychological problems were 35.0%, 22.0%, and 23.0%, respectively. Two studies demonstrated that telemedicine can be used to screen the suspected patients and give advice. One study emphasized the limited possibilities to follow up people calling hotlines and difficulties in identifying all suspect cases.ConclusionsTelemedicine services should focus on the issues that the public is most concerned about, such as then symptoms, prevention and treatment of the disease, and provide reasonable advice to patients with symptoms or people with epidemic history.

Background COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic. Methods We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM (China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndromes) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff. Results We included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections with early outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS were 44.0%, 36.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively. Conclusions The proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44% in the early outbreak. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.

BackgroundGlucocorticoids are widely used in the treatment of various pulmonary inflammatory diseases, but they are also often accompanied by significant adverse reactions. Published guidelines point out that low dose and short duration systemic glucocorticoid therapy may be considered for patients with rapidly progressing COVID-19 while the evidence is still limited.MethodsWe comprehensively searched electronic databases and supplemented the screening by conducting a manual search. We included RCTs and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids in children and adults with COVID-19, SARS and MERS, and conducted meta-analyses of the main indicators that were identified in the studies.ResultsOur search retrieved 23 studies, including one RCT and 22 cohort studies, with a total of 13,815 patients. In adults with COVID-19, the use of systemic glucocorticoid did not reduce mortality (RR=2.00, 95% CI: 0.69 to 5.75,I2=90.9%) or the duration of lung inflammation (WMD=-1 days, 95% CI: -2.91 to 0.91), while a significant reduction was found in the duration of fever (WMD=-3.23 days, 95% CI: -3.56 to -2.90). In patients with SARS, glucocorticoids also did not reduce the mortality (RR=1.52, 95% CI: 0.89 to 2.60,I2=84.6%), duration of fever (WMD=0.82 days, 95% CI: -2.88 to 4.52,I2=97.9%) or duration of lung inflammation absorption (WMD=0.95 days, 95% CI: -7.57 to 9.48,I2=94.6%). The use of systemic glucocorticoid therapy prolonged the duration of hospital stay in all patients (COVID-19, SARS and MERS).ConclusionsGlucocorticoid therapy was found to reduce the duration of fever, but not mortality, duration of hospitalization or lung inflammation absorption. Long-term use of high-dose glucocorticoids increased the risk of adverse reactions such as coinfections, so routine use of systemic glucocorticoids for patients with COVID-19 cannot be recommend.

Background The COVID-19 outbreak presents a new, life-threatening disease. Our aim was to assess the potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 in children. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) from their inception to March 31, 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials and cohort studies of interventions with antiviral agents for children (less than 18 years of age) with COVID-19. Results A total of 23 studies with 6,008 patients were included. There was no direct evidence and all of evidence were indirect. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate to high in general. The effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19 is uncertain: For adults with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir had no effect on mortality [risk ratio (RR) =0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45 to 1.30]. Arbidol and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had no benefit on probability of negative PCR test (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.73; RR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18) respectively. For adults with SARS, interferon was associated with reduced corticosteroid dose [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.14 g; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.07] but had no effect on mortality (RR =0.72; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.88); ribavirin did not reduce mortality (RR =0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.06) and was associated with high risk of severe adverse reactions; and oseltamivir had no effect on mortality (RR =0.87; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.38). Ribavirin combined with interferon was also not effective in adults with MERS and associated with adverse reactions. Conclusions There is no evidence showing the effectiveness of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19, and the clinical efficacy of existing antiviral agents is still uncertain. We do not suggest clinical routine use of antivirals for COVID-19 in children, with the exception of clinical trials.

BackgroundThe aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19, as well as to introduce the present situation of antibiotics use and bacterial coinfections in COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe searched Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, Wanfang Data and CNKI from their inception to March 31, 2020. In addition, we searched related studies on COVID-19 published before March 31, 2020 through Google Scholar. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, and synthesized the results using a qualitative synthesis.ResultsSix studies met our inclusion criteria. Five studies on SARS showed an overall risk of death of 7.2% to 20.0%. One study of SARS patients who used macrolides, quinolones or beta lactamases showed that the mean duration of hospital stay was 14.2, 13.8 and 16.2 days, respectively, and their average duration of fever was 14.3, 14.0 and 16.2 days, respectively. One cohort study on MERS indicated that macrolide therapy was not associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.51, P = 0.56) and improvement in MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.47, -1.64], P = 0.68). According to the findings of 33 studies, the proportion of antibiotics use ranged from 19.4% to 100.0% in children and 13.2% to 100.0% in adults, despite the lack of etiological evidence. The most commonly used antibiotics in adults were quinolones, cephalosporins and macrolides and in children meropenem and linezolid.ConclusionsThe benefits of antibiotic agents for adults with SARS or MERS were questionable in the absence of bacterial coinfections. There is no evidence to support the use of antibiotic agents for children with COVID-19 in the absence of bacterial coinfection.

Background Hypertension is one of the common diseases, which brings heavy burden to human race. Currently, western medication is in absolutely dominant position in the treatment of hypertension, but it maintains for a short time and there are various side effects and drug tolerance. Therefore, Chinese medicine has attracted great attention in the treatment field of hypertension, and angelica is one of the most frequently used herbs. Objectives In order to give some inspiration to researches in these fields, this article presents the current research status of angelica and its compound formulas treating hypertension and its complications with evidence mapping. Methods Main databases were systematically searched, and researches about angelica or its compound formulas containing angelica treating hypertension or its complications were included. EXCEL 2013 was used to integrate and process the data, and the result is showed intuitively with the bubble diagram. Results 49 RCTs were included after screening. The articles recruited were published with a rising trend along with time. Of the 49 RCTs, there is the outcome measure of general the efficacy in the result part in 34 RCTs (69.4%), and all the clinical effective rate in the angelica intervention group is significantly higher than the control group. There is the outcome measure of reduction of MAP in the result part in 28 RCTs, and 27 RCTs (96.4%) showed that the angelica intervention group is significantly improved than the control group while 1 (3.6%) showed no significant differences. There is the outcome measure of efficacy of target organ protection in the result part in 26 RCTs, and 25 RCTs (96.2%) showed that there is significant difference between the angelica intervention group and the control group. Of the 49 RCTs, there is the outcome measure of adverse effects in the result part in 17 RCTs. 14 RCTs (82.4%) reported no adverse effects, 2 RCTs (11.8%) reported adverse effects rate as lower than 10%, and 1 RCT (7.1%) reported adverse effects rate as higher than 40%. Conclusion Current research with low quality has revealed that angelica is effective in reduction of MAP and target organ protection and the adverse effects rate is low, and the effectiveness and safety of angelica needs to be proved by further researches with high quality. Researches of high quality are needed to provide scientific evidence for angelica in treating hypertension and its complications.

Introduction The 2017 International Standard for Reporting Items for practice Guideline in HealThcare (RIGHT) published reporting guidelines to enhance transparency and clarity in the process of developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). As there are some barriers in the applicability of these guidelines to acupuncture due to its specificity in terms of manipulations, locations and channels compared to other health care interventions, we aim to develop a specific reporting checklist for the development of CPGs on acupuncture. Methods The study design will refer to the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and will be modified as appropriate. We will conduct a literature review and establish an international multidisciplinary team, including a Development Group, a Delphi Panellists Group and an Advisory Group. We will run three rounds of modified Delphi surveys, face-to-face consensus meetings, consultations with advisors, pilot tests of the draft list of reports and promotion of the checklist. We plan to update regularly. Results The study is ongoing and there are no complete results. We will update it in time if there is any result. Conclusions This work will be relevant to a broad range of CPGs addressing questions of reporting standards on CPGs on Acupuncture, which will have the following advantages: 1) To provide regulations for guideline developers; 2) To obtain more precise and clear guidelines for readers and clinical practitioners; and 3) To evaluate reporting quality of CPGs on acupuncture and improve transparency of research reports for editors and reviewers.

ObjectivesWe systematically analysed recommendations from gout guidelines as an example, to provide a basis for developing a reporting standard of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).DesignSystematic review without meta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE and all relevant guideline websites (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, WHO, Guidelines International Network, DynaMed, UpTodate, Best Practice) from their inception to January 2017 to identify and select gout CPGs. We used search terms such as ‘gout’, ‘hyperuricemia’ and ‘guideline’. We included the eligible CPGs of gout according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria after screening titles, abstracts and full texts. The characteristics of recommendations reported in the included guidelines were extracted and analysed.ResultsA total of 15 gout guidelines with a range of 5–80 recommendations were retrieved. Several indicators were used in the gout guidelines to facilitate identification of recommendations, including grouping all recommendations in a summary section, formatting recommendations in a particular or special way, using locating words for recommendations and indicating the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. We found some components commonly used in the recommendations. The wording of recommendations varied across guidelines. Recommendations were detailed and explained in the section of rationale and explanation of recommendations. In some guidelines, recommendations were accompanied with other material to assist their reporting.ConclusionsVariability and inconsistency were found on the reporting and presentation of recommendations in gout guidelines. Several points for reporting recommendation can be summarised. First, we suggested summarising and highlighting the core recommendations in a guideline. Second, guideline developers should try to structure and write recommendations reasonably. Third, it was necessary to detail and explain the recommendations and their rationale. Finally, describing and providing other potential useful contents was also a helpful way for clear reporting.

Objective The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to compare the effectiveness and safety of induction with and without antithymocyte globulin (ATG) combined with cyclosporine/tacrolimus-based immunosuppression in renal transplantation. Methods Trials were identified through a computerized literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane controlled trials register, Cochrane Renal Group Specialized Register of RCTs, and Chinese Biomedical database. Two independent reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and quality, and then extracted data. Data were extracted for patient and graft survival, acute rejection, the incidence of Banff, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Four RCTs (892 patients) were identified. The data showed that induction with ATG was more beneficial than no induction with ATG to reduce the incidence of chronic rejection (RR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.84) and acute rejection within 6 months (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49–0.96) and at 12 months (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50–0.89) as well as Banff II episodes (RR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30–0.91), but increased the incidences of CMV infection (RR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.27–2.04) and leukopenia (RR 3.88; 95% CI, 2.80–5.38) and thrombocytopenia (RR 2.92; 95% CI, 1.77–4.04). There was no statistical difference between patient or graft survival rates at 6 and 12 months, as well as the incidences of Banff III or Banff I after transplantation. Conclusion Based on available data induction with ATG was more efficient to reduce the rate of acute rejection episodes and chronic rejection responses after renal transplantation, but was associated with increased side effects, particularly CMV infections. It is important to provide the most benefit for an individual patient.